(no subject)

AFA mail generally makes me cringe -- it's usually just this side of pure intolerance and bile. Occasionally, however, they get it right.

Dear C,

Allstate has fired a manager because he expressed his Christian beliefs concerning homosexuality.  Matt Barber was a manager in Allstate's Corporate Security Division.  On his own time, and without identifying himself as an employee of Allstate, he wrote a column posted on several websites which was critical of same-sex marriage.

An outside homosexual group complained to Allstate about the column.  Because of their support for the homosexual agenda, Barber was immediately fired and ushered off company property.

The message is clear: To work for Allstate one must not publicly express their Christian belief in the Bible's teaching on homosexuality.  Barber was fired because he did.  Homosexuals can criticize and condemn the Bible's teaching and they are welcomed, but Christians must remain silent. 

After following the link to the article, I find I have to agree: Allstate appears to be in the wrong on this one.

I'm setting aside the allegation of retaliation at the heart of the firing, although I think that's probably more accurate than that Allstate's out to persecute every Christian in their ranks who dares to speak up, because whether it's accurate or not, that's not the reason they gave.  The trouble is that the reason they gave should not ever be viewed as a valid reason, and then it couldn't be used as a screen for other things.

Expressing your opinion on your own time, using your own resources, shouldn't be grounds for termination. I don't care if you're employing members of the Ku Klux Klan, if they're breaking no laws in or out of work, and behaving appropriately at work, you don't have cause for termination. Reverse the situation and make it someone writing about pro-GLBT issues and being fired by their company for it, and there'd be outrage, and rightly so. We can't promote respect for personal rights by violating the personal rights of others. When we advocate tolerance, we then agree to act out of that same tolerance ourselves.

And that's exactly what my email is going to say.

Hoist on His Own Petard...

Link echoed from about three places today.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

They need three of the five people on the Board of Selectmen to agree. I heartily hope they get that go-ahead: I'd love for one of the Justices supporting the decision to be the first new victim of the decision.